Talk:Star Dream Soul OS
Add the Article The game's been out for nearly three weeks now. Is the article going to actually be made? Because if you don't have the time, then maybe this 'claimed' stuff should be relinquished to someone who does. Meganerd18 (talk) 03:18, June 29, 2016 (UTC) :Three weeks is not a lot of time. Not particularly anyway, and besides, people have lives besides the wiki. We chose to claim these because we're active on here most of the time. Unfortunately, the claimer for this article is away for 2 weeks. If you have such an issue, just be patient or get the game. It's a primary source anyway. Iqskirby Bihm Masheen Gahn! 07:13, June 29, 2016 (UTC) "people have lives besides the wiki"..... if that's going to be an excuse for why this page has been on a hiatus for over a month without any content, then that's why it was suggested that "maybe this 'claimed' stuff should be relinquished to someone who does the time". "We chose to claim these because we're active on here most of the time".... well apparently that isn't too true considering how the page is still blank two weeks after you posted that comment. If the claimer, NerdyBoutKirby, is away for two weeks, then it would have been most reasonable to relieve the claim to allow someone else who's actually able and willing to edit the page that chance. Who's to say someone doesn't already have the game and wants to add to the article but can't since an inactive editor pretty much locked the page? Not only is it irresponsible, but it's also ridiculous how people click on an article expecting to read about the character in question...... only for an idle editor to have laid claim on it, virtually denying anyone else an opportunity to contribute to that page. ::We put the claim system in place because people were making sub-par articles. There were two possible claim templates that could've been made: one that's a banner on top of the page (like this one) or one placed beside a red link. He's back now, and we do have plans on shortening the claim time by half. What I don't understand is why people are so urgent to see this article. If you don't have the game and don't plan on getting it, I don't see the importance. If you want the game but don't have it, I don't know why you'd want to spoil yourself like that. If you have the game, you can play the game and get the information there, just like everyone else, including those who write the articles. Even if we didn't have this claim "system", the same problems would still occur, because claiming has been a thing since before this new banner came to be. We just made this template, along with a page to denote which pages are claimed, to inform editors that it has been claimed. Before this happened, people still claimed articles, but other editors wouldn't know that, they'd make the page (probably sub-par as well) while someone else was making it. As a result, the page would be straight-up deleted. So regardless of whether we have this banner or not, the same problem would still exist, except one way would involve deleting the page multiple times. I'm sorry you're upset, but you'll have to just deal with it. However, let me also note that if you're so upset with this editor, talk to him here. I'm sure he'll be wiling to listen in. Iqskirby Bihm Masheen Gahn! 16:33, July 10, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm about to begin the page. I just needed to get some stuff out of the way first. Your irritation is justified, but I promise the completed page will not disappoint. NerdyBoutKirby [[User_talk:NerdyBoutKirby|the EYES!]] 19:15, July 10, 2016 (UTC) :::Just because you can't see a need doesn't mean none exists. Plenty of people are perfectly okay with spoilers and like to look up info out of simple curiosity. And "if you have the game just play it" is a garbage argument. No one wants to spend half an hour of their life struggling through the entire True Arena again just to see what the final boss's description is or whatever. :::The fact is that it defeats the very purpose of a'' wiki - "an encyclopedia ''that anyone can edit" - to have people squatting on articles for over a month because they don't trust anyone else to get it done. Lapideus (talk) 21:34, July 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::I don't know anyone who has an urge to spoil themselves, but I'll leave it at that. You have your points, and I can agree with them. Iqskirby Bihm Masheen Gahn! 00:47, July 11, 2016 (UTC) Apology For all parties involved, I'd like to make an apology about this whole Star Dream Soul OS fiasco. Clearly I have caused a great deal of consternation with my actions (or lack thereof). I am deeply ashamed of this. In light of this past situation, we will be placing greater restrictions on article claims in the near future. The issue will not occur again. I hope all who were negatively impacted can forgive me. Sincerely, NerdyBoutKirby [[User_talk:NerdyBoutKirby|the EYES!]] 20:21, July 11, 2016 (UTC) I don't think you really need to apologise. The article is a worthy addition to the wiki, and I think it's well worth the wait. People can be really impatient, and like some people have said, if they were really that desperate to see SDSOS, they should have slogged through the True Arena, like I did. Callum90ish (talk) 21:38, July 12, 2016 (UTC) Star Dream Soul OS undead? Well...should we give it the 'undead' category label? It is the usual creepy 'soul' boss and doesn't differ much from the normal undead monstrosites the series has thrown at us...but such a conclusion would leave Star Dream Soul OS as a zombified computer, which sounds odd. Joshaeus (talk) 00:00, December 5, 2016 (UTC)Joshaeus :I don't think so. It's a mechanical creature, with the only organic parts in it being Haltmann's soul...if you can even call that "organic". Meta Kirby52 Not This Time. 00:06, December 5, 2016 (UTC) :Hello again! Normally I'd have just accepted the above answer, but I feel the need to make two (much stronger) arguements to considering Star Dream Soul OS an undead enemy. Please read carefully... :1 - When Kirby attacks the original star dream with the robobot armor, the pause menu describes Star Dream as a "life form". 'Logically, if Star dream is/was a life form it must be living, and thus Star Dream Soul OS would logically be undead (inasmuch as it is a resurrected version of the living star dream) :2 - Excluding Star Dream from the 'undead' label because it's not an organic life form would require excluding Drawcia Soul (a sentient ''painting) from the category for the exact same reason. The two have some interesting similarities - neither were ever intended to have a mind of their own, and both apparently have built in soul forms (the other 'soul' bosses turn into such as the unexpected result of their defeats by Kirby). :3 - Not nearly as compelling as the above, but again - Star Dream acts ''and ''looks ''undead. The obviously not healed wound from Galacta Knight's return (which would have destroyed Star Dream were it not for the Soul OS), the savage behavior of the heart, its final death moan...the Soul OS definitely want to be an undead boss. :Well...that's all. Thanks for looking :) Joshaeus (talk) 22:00, June 29, 2017 (UTC)Joshaeus ::1. Well, actually...the pause menu description is speaking about ''Kirby, not Star Dream. "...The nearly infinite power within this life-form is astounding. Calculating probability of survival... It doesn't look good.". The description is actually an analysis run by Star Dream on the current situation. It wouldn't be calculating Kirby's odds of survival considering SD was pushed back to the brink of defeat in this scenario. ::2. Drawcia Soul may be a sentient painting, but she's presumably more organic than Star Dream. You have to remember that Star Dream (or, the Mother Computer) was built by Haltmann himself, so unless Haltmann contributed some organic parts from creatures around Gamble Galaxy (saying he did would be just pure speculation) I'd also like to add in that most Soul forms throughout the Kirby series are actually non-canon. ::3. I'm not really sure how it acts undead. Looks? Eh, maybe. I would've expected the colors to be a tad paler and/or more sickly looking if it was meant to look undead (think Magolor Souls color scheme, or even Soul of Sectonia, with her sickly blue stalk). Anyway, the "Soul OS" is presumably an operation that SD ran in that specific situation; after all, it's a computer and I'm sure it has executables and programs that it's capable of running. ::So, yeah. Still against putting the "Undead" tag on SDSOS. Meta Kirby52 This won't be pretty. 02:53, June 30, 2017 (UTC) ::Hate to say it, but...the description is definitely NOT Star Dream's analysis. Here it is for reference; “ Its energy signature far exceeds that of the Invader Armor, '''our combat mech. The nearly infinite power within this life-form is astounding. Calculating probability of survival... It doesn't look good.” ::This would make no sense coming from Star Dream (which is NOT fighting with an invador armor by this point or even shooting them at Kirby), so either Kirby or (less likely) the armor itself is stating this. Either way, this is directly referring to Star Dream and thus stating that the original Star Dream (and presumably Star Dream Soul OS, at least as long as it retains Haltmann's soul) is a life form. Joshaeus (talk) 19:21, July 2, 2017 (UTC)Joshaeus :::Regardless of this argument, I can call it undead due to it being fused with Haltmann's Soul. Iqskirby (talk) 19:25, July 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::To be considered "undead" Star Dream would technically need to die first, and then be revived, either by itself or external forces. There's no evidence that Galacta Knight's slash "killed" it (keep in mind, a machine can't really "die"; it can only shutdown). Sure, it was heavily damaged, and subsequently shut down temporarily. Furthermore, Haltmann didn't "die" until SDSOS's fourth (?) phase. Sure, he lost his physical form, but this was after his soul/conscious was uploaded to Star Dream. Therefore, he was still "alive" up until the cores were destroyed. And after his soul was erased (as claimed in the flavor text), he never came back "to life", meaning even with Haltmann in there, SDSOS still wouldn't fit under "undead". There's more to this, but I'm already taking up a buttload of space. ::::@Joshaeus; I simply got that information from Kirby's page. I don't know who added the information, but it's there. If you don't think the description is narrated by Star Dream, feel free to change the section. (it's near the bottom) ::::Anyway yes, still against calling SDSOS undead. Meta Kirby52 This won't be pretty. 20:10, July 2, 2017 (UTC) Copy Abilities Does SDSOS actually spawn in Waddle Doo's, Pillah's, Leafans, and Capsule J3's? That sounds a little far-fetched, because I can't recall ever having seen them. Though, perhaps, I didn't wait around long enough to see all its attacks. I'm really thinking SDSOS does *not* spawn those in, so I'll remove them for now. Add them back if it does, I suppose. Meta Kirby52 Not This Time. 15:33, December 20, 2016 (UTC) :He does spawn in enemies during the heart-and-pillars phase. They usually appear if you're taking a while, though, such as if you don't have an ability in the first place. Iqskirby Bihm Masheen Gahn! 16:16, December 20, 2016 (UTC) If SDS OS has a page, Kracko Jr. should too.PartyTime808 (talk) 13:12, December 26, 2016 (UTC) :Kracko Jr. is a pretty insignificant mid-boss; it doesn't serve a key role in lore (albeit, non-canon lore) like SDSOS does; that's not to mention SDSOS is a multi-phase boss while Kracko Jr. is just...a short fight, really. If you want to talk about this more, take it to my talk page, here Meta Kirby52 Not This Time. 14:45, December 26, 2016 (UTC) :Additionally, this idea has already been suggested on this talk page, where another explanation for why Kracko Jr. does not have its own page can be found. :On that note, I'd suggest instead bringing this discussion back on that talk page if you wish to continue this further. It'd probably be more appropriate than a user talk page. Paul2 ''The "dorkiest" of Matter.'' 12:56, June 30, 2017 (UTC)